Featured For amillenial brothers....thoughts?

There are some unnamed folks who need to learn to use the quote feature. Consider the posts on pages 4 $ 5. Each posts contains additional identifiers and they are carried through to the next post. If not noticed and eliminated these added identifiers are sometimes carried through and may attribute the post to the wrong person. Happened to me in my response to "tyndale1946" {my post #36}. I believe when I made the correction it eliminated my post from post #39!

 

You don't rightly divide the word of truth. you mix allegorical and literal interpretation together. It is a hodge-podge of whatever you want. If you interpreted salvation like that no one, according to you, could be saved, for salvation itself would simply be one big mixed up allegory! Pitiful.

What does the Scripture really say:
Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
--Not one verse here, except the last one, was completely fulfilled. In fact from verses 19-21 there was no fulfillment at all. If there was you must point to a day in history when:
1. Those wonders in heaven occurred exactly as described (blood, fire, vapor of smoke). When did that happen?
2. When did the sun turn to darkness and the moon to blood, and just before "that great and notable day of the Lord." This would also be a denial of the Second Coming of Christ.
3. You must admit these things have not happened. Peter never said they did. He simply quoted the prophecy in its entirety.

Even in verse 17, it was not a complete fulfillment. He poured out his Spirit upon SOME flesh, certainly not ALL flesh. When was God's Spirit poured out on all flesh? There has never been a time in history when that has happened. Even if you were to confine that to the event at Pentecost. There were about 100,000 present for the feast. 3,000 were saved. That leaves 97,000 not saved and very unrepentant. Did God's Spirit fall on them as well? Is that your theology?
NO, God's Spirit did not come on ALL flesh, not then, not at any time in history. It is still future. Likewise the rest of the prophecy. It was only a partial fulfillment. Its complete fulfillment is yet to come.

 

Correct Icon! Peter is simply saying that the prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled at Pentecost.

 

He was saaying that Pentacost did fufill an aspect of that [tp[hecy, but there was a full fulfillment yet to still come!

 

Acts 2:16-21
16. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17. And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18. And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19. And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
21. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Very likely that what was yet to come was the destruction of the Temple.

 

Then you should be able to account for the various events mentioned in Joel and quoted by Peer.

No argument. That is what it says.

Are you sure about that? Do you really want to go there?
Isaiah gave this prophecy to King Ahaz:
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isa.7:14)
Now we know that this is a prophecy and a sign given to Ahaz. It was partially fulfilled in his time for Ahaz' sake. Your interpretation does not allow for its complete fulfillment in Mat.1:23 where it is quoted once again.
There is a partial fulfillment and a complete fulfillment.
--Many of the OT prophecies are like that; in fact many NT prophesies are like that as well.

No laughing matter to falsely accuse someone. I didn't deny a thing.
Peter says it; and it has not happened yet. That is not a denial of what Peter said.

Don't be foolish here. Read carefully:
Acts 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
The wonders in heaven, the signs in the earth, the blood and the fire, the sun turned into darkness, and the moon turned into blood. When did all these events happen? Luke outlived Paul. Paul died ca.68 A.D. Luke probably lived to see the destruction of the Temple. John lived to see the second century. We have no historical evidence of any of this by any historian or the Bible itself--not by Josephus, a Jewish historian, not by Tacitus, not by anyone. Where in history did it take place.
Note well all these events are in the future tense, future from the time that Peter quoted them, on the Day of Pentecost.

Peter said it in the future tense; it still hasn't happened.

"The Great and Notable Day" is the Coming of Christ. It hasn't happened yet. This speaks to your misunderstanding of Scripture. Especially when you so glibly say, "whatever that phrase meant in scripture." Every student of Scripture knows it refers to the Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation which will usher in the Millennial Kingdom.

Here is what the verse says:
Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
--All these things will happen right before the Second Coming of Christ.
To say that these signs have already happened and yet Christ has not come is a contradiction. The two go together.

Peter never said they happened. They are in future tense. They will happen in verses 19,20. That never happened. Words have meanings.

I never denied anything Peter said. But it certainly wasn't all fulfilled. You can't show where and when it was fulfilled, or give any adequate explanation of the passage.

It is not my failure. Read Acts 2 again. What was happening? It was a Jewish feast--The Feast of Pentecost! Jews from all over the world came to Jerusalem to celebrate it, just like the Ethiopian eunuch who was probably returning from that feast in Acts 8. He too was a Jew, though from Africa.
They were all Jews, though they were from different nations.

In the Millennial Kingdom Christ will rule with a rod of iron over all the nations of the earth. All the inhabitants of the earth will come and worship the King of kings.
His Spirit will come upon all flesh in those days.
The abomination of desolation has never taken place. You probably can't document that either.

What week is Jesus in the midst of?
3.5 years is 3.5 years. What is going to happen at the end of 2017 or the beginning of 2018 according to your calendar?

 

[/quote]
No, you have not accounted for any of those events recorded in Acts 2:19,20 having taken place. They haven't.

There was an immediate fulfillment, though partial. There had to be, otherwise the prophecy given by Isaiah to Ahaz would not make sense. It was given to Ahaz, not to Joseph. Yet the angel in Matthew 1 quoted it to Joseph where the prophecy was fulfilled in in its entirety. It had to have an immediate fulfillment, though partial in the time of Ahaz, for that is who Isaiah was speaking to:

Isaiah 7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
--The sign was the virgin birth given in verse 14. We don't know how it was fulfilled in Ahaz's day. But verse 14 relates right back to verse 10,11.

--Many of the OT prophecies are like that; in fact many NT prophesies are like that as well.

What about Joel's prophecy? Who was it intended for? According to Joel it was NOT intended for YOU!
Joel 2:27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.
--He is speaking to "my people" which at that time are only the people of Israel, and not the Gentiles.
Go to the last verse:
Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
--Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (of the remnant of Israel, and of those in Jerusalem) shall be saved. This call was not universal and has nothing to do with the Gentiles. Its immediate fulfillment is with Israel, otherwise the prophecy does not make sense.

Show me where I denied the words of Peter. I showed you how they were in future tense. That is not denial. You tried to put everything in past tense. That is denial.

It is not amusing at all to change the Word of God just because you have a predetermined theology and you have to twist what God has said to make it fit!

Only in part. Not everything happened.
All through the OT this language speaks of God's judgement upon a nation, or a change of administration of the government....[/quote]
That is exactly what a dispensationalist would say. Welcome on board. :smilewinkgrin:

The dream was interpreted for them, and it was a dream. It is also interpreted in the Book of Genesis for us, so that we can't go wrong.
Gen.42:9 Genesis 42:9 And Joseph remembered the dreams which he dreamed of them,

It was a dream and the interpretation is given right in the context:
Genesis 37:8 And his brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words.
9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

I have no idea what you are talking about for you didn't give a reference. I can't look at the context. The Day of the Lord usually does refer to the Coming of the Lord, which indeed is a day of Judgment. Every man's heart will melt (a well known idiom meaning "melt with fear" or be very fearful).
--You are simply proving my point. Most prophecies have an immediate or partial fulfillment and one that is complete and still in the future.

But they were not complete.

Those things never happened. Give proof that they did.
Where and when were there signs in the sun and in the moon and in the stars and upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring.
Let me remind you that in 70 A.D the destruction of Jerusalem was very local and concerned Jerusalem only. The above description describes a world-wide cataclysm. Nothing of that extent has ever happened since the Flood.

 

There is a wekk accepted rule of dyal fulfillment in the Prophetic element of the Bible though, as there are immediate fulfillments that point towards a more complete future one!

Such as the sign isaiah said was to be given, as there was the child born right then to show God was still with His people, and Jesus coming in the Incarnation..

Also, out of Egypt I have called my Son, refered to isreal in the immediate, but also to jesus called back from Egypt...

Same way, the wicked ruler during Maccabean revolt a type of antichrist yet to come...

And you cannot call those prophecies as all symbolic, as the Bible stated that there were to be signs in the heavens and in the sky and on the earth...

And when did the Spirit fall upon all flesh, and all nations and people obey the Lord himself alone?

 

Then somehow you still have to account for these verses:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

which still have not been fulfilled yet. That is where your position breaks down. Peter did not say that the entire prophecy had been fulfilled.

 

That is how the Bible is naturally divided. Like your link, you go into this with a predetermined "preterist" mindset, that is, if you agree with the link that you provided.
First and foremost the Bible is a history book; the history of creation to Noah; of Noah to Abraham; of Abraham to Joseph; of Joseph to Moses; of Moses to Joshua; of Joshua to Samuel; of Samuel to David and Solomon, and then the rest of the kings, to the deportation of Israel and the deportation of Judah, to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. That is the OT; history.
In the NT it is the history of Jesus, the history of the acts of the Apostles, some epistles that teach doctrine, and then a history of end times.
History is to be taken literally! That which God inspired is not to be trifled with by the whims of man.

They were speaking in tongues. Some started to accuse them of drunkenness. Peter rebuked them, telling them "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." He was referring to that one incident, putting a stop to those scoffers.
Then he goes on to quote the entire prophecy, very little of which was fulfilled on that day!

It is not a laughing matter. The verbs are in future tense. If verses 19-20 were fulfilled show when and where. Where is the evidence? Otherwise you are the one actually denying this, not me.

Pay attention. Peter says nothing about the fulfillment of verse 19,20. The verbs are future tenses.

You are a broken record; Peter never said they were fulfilled.

This is telling. "whatever that meant..." This is an admission that you don't know what he meant. But I have told you what he means. You just need to believe me. That great and notable day is none other than the second coming of Christ.

Then what are the "several" days of the Lord. Do tell.
Those that are future and not imminent either refer to the future judgment of Israel, that is The Tribulation, culminating with their salvation at Second Coming. It refers to that period of time or a part of that period of time, but always to that general period of time. It has not come yet.

These signs are literal and explained in Revelation. They happen at the Second Coming of Christ, and are always tied to his coming. They are also mentioned in Mat.24 in relation to His Coming. If you spiritualize them then it is the same as a denial of His Coming for the two are always associated together.

No, he never said it was all fulfilled.

Read the chapter carefully.
1. It was the feast of Pentecost.
2. There were Jews and only Jews present.
3. The prophecy of Joel, in Joel is a prophecy directed only to Jews.
4. There are about 13 different nations mentioned in the passage--Jews from all of those nations that had come to the temple to celebrate the feast of Pentecost.
5. Out of a crowd of approximately 100,000 only 3,000 "Jews" got saved.
6. From your logic we must conclude that the Spirit (which fell upon all flesh) fell on the rest of the 97,000 Jews including the very ones that crucified Christ. Really?? Icon? Did the Spirit of God come on the very evil men that cried: Crucify Him; Crucify Him!!! Really? This is your belief?
No, the Spirit came on "some flesh," but in the Millennial Kingdom he will come upon ALL flesh.

I never suggested that God is going to save everyone.
But Christ is going to reign in the flesh on this earth for a thousand years.

I am not the one that is denying any texts here. But you really have mangled quite a few of them.

This is one of the most blasphemous things I have heard.
This interpretation is the equivalent of saying that Jesus, after 3.5 years went into the Temple and desecrated it by offering a pig as a sacrifice.
That is what is meant by abomination.
That is what is meant by desolation and desecration.
That is why all sacrifice would cease.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
--Why would the sacrifice of Jesus cause them in Judea to flee into the mountains?